The failed 3 phase plan to topple the Iranian regime
Isreal/US were behind the 7K-30K protest deaths by "Incitement of Insurrection".
Ref: Archived NYT Investigation: Israel's Plan for Iran Unrest
Phase 1: Economic sanctions
These caused a lot of harm to the Iranian people. The US claimed the sanctions were to stop Nukes, yet this tactic is in question, as a regime under pressure would likely double down on attempts, in order to gain a deterrent. While the leaders were naturally still able to live in luxury. Another way the harmful to the people sanctions made sense was that they would motivate the people to dislike and topple the regime. Especially when combined with long term social media psyops (which young people especially were susceptible to, as they used social media a lot, and their young minds were more impressionable to new viewpoints).
Phase 2 (NYT): The "Digital" Coup (January – February 2026)
Before the kinetic strikes (Operation "Epic Fury") began on February 28, there was a sudden massive effort to destabilize the regime from within, to capitalize on the effects of sanctions.
- The January Protests: Large-scale protests erupted across 100 Iranian cities in early January 2026. While many occurred due to economic distress caused by sanctions, the NYT reveals that Mossad-linked networks actively hijacked social media hashtags (like
#FreeThePersianPeople) to steer the narrative toward a total coup. - Cyber-Psychological Ops: Israel reportedly compromised popular Iranian apps, such as the Bade Saba calendar app used by millions. Just before the war started, users received mysterious messages like "Help has arrived. Do not fear," designed to signal that an outside force was coming to support a revolution.
- Funding Opposition: The report suggests Israel and the U.S. were providing support to various internal factions and ethnic minority militias (like Kurdish groups in the north) to stretch the IRGC’s resources thin before a single missile was fired.
Phase 3 (NYT): The "Decapitation" Gamble
The actual bomb strikes on February 28—which killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other top officials—were supposed to be the "trigger" for these pre-positioned groups to seize government buildings.
The Mossad’s logic was:
- Soften the ground with civil unrest and cyber-attacks (January/February).
- Cut off the head of the regime with precise strikes (February 28).
- Watch the collapse as the "galvanized" opposition takes over.
Why it’s being called a "failed" plan
The NYT highlights that Netanyahu is frustrated because, despite the massive January unrest, the Iranian public didn't "rise up" as a unified force after the strikes. Instead, the regime's security apparatus (the Basij and IRGC) used the foreign attacks as a reason to "rally around the flag" and crack down even harder, leading to the current stalemate.
The key takeaway
Israel/US incited a violent coup attempt with many deaths (Iran says 7K, some sources say as many as 30K). Like what many accused Trump of doing on the Capitol, but far worse in its scale/effort/sophistication/intent. It failed anyway, a needless loss of life. As has the subsequent bombings. This all demands a full investigation, like the UK did on the Iraq war (Chilcot).
Wider lessons to consider a new approach
We have to question whether using violent sanctions and inciting coups are valid attempts for regime change - as they usually fail and cause harm to the people of the that country. Bombing etc also fails, as we saw recently with Libya, which is a ruined country. Better ways may be to win the trust of a regime by playing fair with them and others. We only need to listen to the Iranian regime to see their grievances with Israel about what Israel did to Gaza. If a country acts in ways that create hate towards them, they will be at risk of attack. A recent Lancet report showed that millions died due to brutal Western sanctions on regimes over many years that never achieved regime change and only made regimes paranoid and double down on defense spending. Bin Laden in his (now banned) letter cited reports that Western sanctions killed many in Iraq as a key motive for 911. We cannot turn a blind eye to what we are doing around the world. As others will not, and they will have motives to harm our people in return. Sanctions amount to an aggressive/violent preemptive "defense" - with unforeseen consequences as others seek to fight back in all kinds of unpredictable and uncontrollable ways. Those who know Putin say he invaded Ukraine in what he saw as preemptive "defense" against future threats to his country as the Ukraine army grew in power. He is widely condemned in the West for that. Yet we use far more violent methods of preemptive "defense" in the form of sanctions that kill millions. The Lancet report on all the deaths we cause was widely ignored and quickly brushed over by the Western press. After what Putin called his "special op" in Ukraine, we again failed to understand his motives, and over reacted by turning it into a full on proxy war which went on to cause massive harm to Ukraine and many deaths. Istanbul peace talks were underway. It could have been settled like the Georgian SO was, and likely with better terms than Georgia got, as Ukraine were fighting back much better that Georgia were. Trump's Iran attack and the Ukraine proxy war have a key thing in common: they both occurred during promising and progressing peace talks in good faith. The West "stopped" both talks and decided that military war was a better option. Ukraine was arguably two wars, 1) the initial SO, designed to stop fighting in Donbass and limit the growing Ukrainian army (against previous Minsk agreements). And 2) a proxy war of Russia vs the West using Ukrainian men to do the fighting. Notice how many wars, coups, invasions and violent sanctions the West is involved in. We are happy to let other dictators exist in the Middle East as long as they allow US airbases and trade oil in the dollar. So what are our motives here? It's easy to see why other countries see through this and dislike us so much. But this is hidden from our own public as our press barely report anything on it. The BBC could invite Jeffrey Sachs for example to talk about this, but they do not. Above all we need to re-examine our whole approach to international relations and start playing fair in the world. This can only start when our press makes people more aware of what is going on. Indy press is still not widespread enough, although there is hope more people will switch to it. Wars occur in a cycle of escalation, and any side can be the mature one, swallow their pride, and literally take a hit without fighting back. Instead step back, do some listening and understanding to understand why the other side is really annoyed and their fears/concerns. We can then seek to address them in a win/win manor. Escalation is only lose/lose, history has shown this. Both leaders usually act immaturely, and justify themselves, taking a one-sided view of events that puts them in the right.